Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

oppss... (which is another use of ...)

 

[epix]

Yet, a difference.

That's why OM cannot be applied to anything anywhere. You can't build a circular swimming pool, coz pi = 3.14159... and your computation will never reach the OM-required Final Precision no matter what.

What did you say? Who? Doron? I think he's home swimming in his bathtub, coz he doesn't know better.

 

[jsfisher]

Excellent! That still supports the "indistinguishable from zero" hypothesis.

Only by your local-only reasoning.

FIFY.

Oh, by the way, what is 9.999.../10 ?

0.999...

0.000...1/10 = 0.000...0.1

Oh, good. Let's consider that.

In Doronetics, 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1 and 10 - 9.999... = 0.000...1

We also know that (10 - 9.999...)/10 = (10/10) - (9.999.../10) = 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1 and that (10 - 9.999...)/10 = (0.000...1)/10 = 0.000...10

Therefore, 0.000...1 = 0.000...10.

Moreover, since 0.000...1 = 0.000...10 = (0.000...1)/10, it follows directly that 0.000...1 = 0.

Ain't arithmetic wonderfully consistent? Too bad Doronetics cannot make the same claim.

 

[The Man]

A is a strict False value.

B is a strict True value.

AB is a non-strict False\True superposition value.

Nope, by your own assertions your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition so your “AB’ is strictly (by you own assertions) not a superposition.

AND connective is a binary operation, which has strict output only if both input values are strict.

Wrong again, as shown before any binary variable AND FALSE is strictly FALSE, while any binary variable AND TRUE is strictly just that binary variable.

The output is non-strict if one of the inputs is non-strict, and the commutativity of AND connective has no influence on the non-strict output.

Again as stated before that commutative property’s “influence” on the output is that the output can not change due to changes in the ordering of the variables.

Since you get AB as strict value, you are unable to get AB as a non-strict False\True superposition value.

Since you claim your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition you know your “superposition” is not a superposition and you just like to call it a “superposition” to pretend you know what you’re talking about, which is just a variable that you simply don’t want to call a variable.

 

[The Man]

Wrong.

For example, if 1 is a strict value and 0.000...1 is non-strict value, still 0.000...1/1 is a valid expression that is resulted by non-strict value.

So you're just going to deliberately ignore the actually question…

So are you now claiming your "AB" is something other than just being strictly your "AB"? That would be typically self contradictory of you. The simple fact remains Doron that you simply do not like limitation least of all your own.

…how typically deliberately ignorant of you.

 

[doronshadmi]

That's why OM cannot be applied to anything anywhere. You can't build a circular swimming pool, coz pi = 3.14159... and your computation will never reach the OM-required Final Precision no matter what.

pi > 3.14159... [base 10]

 

[doronshadmi]

Wrong again, as shown before any binary variable AND FALSE is strictly FALSE, while any binary variable AND TRUE is strictly just that binary variable.

Wrong.

AND connective provides a strict result only if both inputs are strict.

Since AB is non-strict, the output is non-strict and the commutativity of AND connective no influence on it.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you're just going to deliberately ignore the actually question…

The Man, you are unable to get the generalization of my non-local number/ local number example,
which is equivalent to non-strict AB\(strict A;strict B) case.

You are still closed under your fragmented context-dependent reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

and that (10 - 9.999...)/10 = (0.000...1)/10 = 0.000...10

Mistake a: (10 - 9.999...)/10 = 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

Mistake b: (0.000...1)/10 = 0.000...0.1[base 10] = 0.000...1[base 100]

Your local-only arithmetic does not hold water.

 

[epix]

FIFY.



Oh, good. Let's consider that.

In Doronetics, 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1 and 10 - 9.999... = 0.000...1

We also know that (10 - 9.999...)/10 = (10/10) - (9.999.../10) = 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1 and that (10 - 9.999...)/10 = (0.000...1)/10 = 0.000...10

Therefore, 0.000...1 = 0.000...10.

Moreover, since 0.000...1 = 0.000...10 = (0.000...1)/10, it follows directly that 0.000...1 = 0.
Ain't arithmetic wonderfully consistent? Too bad Doronetics cannot make the same claim.

Let's see if it does:

1. (a - b)/a = 1 - a/b

2. (1 - a/b)/a = (b - a)/(a*b)

3. If (b - a)/(a*b) = 0, then a=b.
4. If a=10 and b=9.999..., then a≠b, and (3) is false in its premise, unless 10 = 9.999... by a standalone assertion.

 

[epix]

pi > 3.14159... [base 10]

Aah, an excerpt from The Joy of Doronian Inequalities...

The fact that pi is the limit that no convergent series designed to approach it ever reaches doesn't mean that pi > 3.14159... , coz "3.14159... "(approximate format) is the equivalent expression to "pi" (exact format). Hence pi = 3.14159...

 

[doronshadmi]

Aah, an excerpt from The Joy of Doronian Inequalities...

The fact that pi is the limit that no convergent series designed to approach it ever reaches doesn't mean that pi > 3.14159... , coz "3.14159... "(approximate format) is the equivalent expression to "pi" (exact format). Hence pi = 3.14159...

By standard approach 3.14159...[base 10] is a numeral that represents number pi.

By OM 3.14159...[base 10] is a non-local number < local number pi.

 

[doronshadmi]

Actually I made a mistake in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7365848&postcount=15909.

Let us correct it.

1.0 - 0.9 = 0.1

10*(1.0-0.9) = 10*(0.1) = 1.0

By following the same reasoning:

1.0 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

10*(1.0-0.999...) = 10*(0.000...1) = 0.000...10 , which is 10 times greater than 0.000...1

According to this correction:

(10 - 9.999...)/10 = (0.000...10)/10 = 0.000...1

(0.000...1)/10 = 0.000...0.1[base 10] = 0.000...1[base 100] , etc.

For more details please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7367971&postcount=15918.

 

[epix]

By standard approach 3.14159...[base 10] is a numeral that represents number pi.

By OM 3.14159...[base 10] is a non-local number < local number pi.

In that case, you need to change the "non-local" expression 3.14159... into something else, coz it doesn't make a bit of sense. Even if you make adjustments with respect to the continuous values of various pi series, be adviced that some of the series which approach pi can take on values that exceed pi -- they oscilate toward pi,
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PiFormulas.html
and so any "non-local s" you come up with may not satisfy s<pi, unless OM has its own special formulas that generate the digits of pi in such a way that the values always stay below 3.14159... Speaking of which, let's see at least one pi-generating formula made in the local OM factory that manufactures ideas previously never conceived by the mortals of the Milky Way and other assorted galaxies.

 

[jsfisher]

Mistake a: (10 - 9.999...)/10 = 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

Not a mistake at all, Doron. Well, not mine, anyway.

(10 - 9.999...) /10 = (0.000...1) / 10 = 0.000...0.1
-and-
(10 - 9.999...) / 10 = (10/10) - (9.999.../10) = 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

Mistake b: (0.000...1)/10 = 0.000...0.1[base 10] = 0.000...1[base 100]

Mistake, no. Typographic error, yes. Your fanciful notation makes it easy to drop a stray period. All my 0.000...10s should have been 0.000...0.1s.

The point remains, 10-9.999... can be evaluated in either of two ways, leading to the conclusion 0.000...1 = 0.000...0.1. That, in turn, leaves you with the result both are 0.

 

[epix]

Actually I made a mistake in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7365848&postcount=15909.

Let us correct it.

1.0 - 0.9 = 0.1

10*(1.0-0.9) = 10*(0.1) = 1.0

By following the same reasoning:

1.0 - 0.999... = 0.000...1

You only think that you "follow the same reasoning."

Look at the first line again:

1.0 - 0.9 = 0.1 = 1.0 - 9/10

So if you follow the same reasoning, then

1.0 - 0.999... = 0.000...1 = 1.0 - p/q

You can solve p/q = 0.9 as an irreducible fraction (if p/q stands for the long division instruction), but can you solve p/q = 0.999...? If not, then 0.9 and 0.999... do not belong to the same group of numbers and therefore you don't follow the same reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

Not a mistake at all, Doron. Well, not mine, anyway.

(10 - 9.999...) /10 = (0.000...1) / 10 = 0.000...0.1
-and-
(10 - 9.999...) / 10 = (10/10) - (9.999.../10) = 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...1



Mistake, no. Typographic error, yes. Your fanciful notation makes it easy to drop a stray period. All my 0.000...10s should have been 0.000...0.1s.

The point remains, 10-9.999... can be evaluated in either of two ways, leading to the conclusion 0.000...1 = 0.000...0.1. That, in turn, leaves you with the result both are 0.

You have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7370579&postcount=15933.

Please try again.

 

[doronshadmi]

You only think that you "follow the same reasoning."

Look at the first line again:

1.0 - 0.9 = 0.1 = 1.0 - 9/10

So if you follow the same reasoning, then

1.0 - 0.999... = 0.000...1 = 1.0 - p/q

You can solve p/q = 0.9 as an irreducible fraction (if p/q stands for the long division instruction), but can you solve p/q = 0.999...? If not, then 0.9 and 0.999... do not belong to the same group of numbers and therefore you don't follow the same reasoning.

"The same reasoning" is not the same as "The same result".

You do not distinguish between "the same reasoning" (what I say) and "the same result" (what you say).

Please this time read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7370579&postcount=15933 according to what I say (and please do not miss the link there).

 

[doronshadmi]

In that case, you need to change the "non-local" expression 3.14159... into something else, coz it doesn't make a bit of sense.

EDIT:

Only because you try to get it by using local-only reasoning, which takes 3.14159...[base 10] as a numeral of pi, and not as a kind of a number of its own (a non-local number).

Please look again at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6465716&postcount=12075

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6470162&postcount=12091

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6474140&postcount=12101

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6474902&postcount=12106

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6498188&postcount=12160

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6514886&postcount=12204

in order to get OM's new notion.

 

[jsfisher]

You have missed http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7370579&postcount=15933.

Please try again.

You are just making this nonsense up on the fly, aren't you? Ok, so you decided you needed to readjust your fantasy because of reality encroachment. According to this latest goal post placement, we have:

10 - 9.999... = 0.000...10

We also have:

10 - 9.999... = (9 + 1) - (9 + 0.999..) = (9 - 9) + (1 - 0.999...) = 0 + 0.000...1.


Therefore, 0.000...10 = 0.000...1, and from there it immediately follows that they both equal 0.

Care to readjust things in the hopes of not contradicting yourself again?